Ezio Auditore Da Firenze: It would be if it were doctrine. But it is merely an observation on the nature of reality. To say that nothing is true is to realise that the foundations of society are fragile and that we must the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted is to understand that we are the architects of our actions and that we must live with our consequences, whether glorious or tragic.

The creed's maxim was NITEIP, but the creed itself consisted of the three basic tenants. Those tenants were the requirements for being an Assassin as it set the parameters for their duty; it's how they carried out their assassinations. NITEP was the philosophy of the assassin order.

I want to dispute this and say something like how the three tenants were only from the Masyaf Guild but were followed by later Assassins such as Ezio (because all true Assassins thought alike enough to agree with them), but I'm sure I'd be wrong about stuff.

I feel I should point out that while grammatically and logically correct the use of the word "metal" literally refers to his armour. If you mean a persons ability to cope in difficult situations, i.e: their strength of character it should be mettle.

The common expression is; to test your mettle.
In the pic the words metal and mettle are interchangeable, it's a play on words.
However the primary meaning is derived from the common saying as mentioned above,
whereas writing "metal" just destroys the play on words because you're basically pointing out that there's a pun in your sentence.
It's like telling a joke and then explaining why it's funny when no one laughs.

I wasn't aware we were arguing, I was just mentioning that I thought it was misspelled because generally the guys who write for video games aren't twelve years old and have no doubt heard that particular phrase. If it was supposed to be metal then they definitely messed up. Anyway, why is the pic irrelevant? It seems to me it was quite a good pic for this post as comments go.

I meant irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, as in irrelevant in the pool of stuff one could argue about. And we were arguing, any conversations with arguments is a debate, an argument, it doesn't have to be shouting and fags and ******* .

There is a lesson to be learned here, something of utmost importance for sociology, a final and definite trace of a link between mutually unconnected individuals showing the same thought processes albeit in their own unique way, but I'm not qualified enough to study it.

And too lazy. But I did find it humorous, so at least some sort of something is arguably accomplished here.